Posted on 01/03/2012 5:11:57 PM PST by SJackson
And why he can’t be so neatly separated from the GOP field
Rep. Ron Paul yesterday in Iowa.(Win McNamee/Getty Images)As a Jew, I hope Rep. Ron Paul does not win today’s Iowa caucuses. This isn’t about policy differences, although certainly, say, the Republican Jewish Coalition found enough simply in Paul’s policies—his support for a more isolationist stance, including reducing aid to Israel, and his total lack of concern for Iran’s race to build nuclear weapons—to condemn him. It is the publication in the 1990s of newsletters, under his name and reportedly written by a close adviser, that trafficked in racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism (greatest hits here), combined with his refusal to treat this fact as something serious rather than a bugaboo trumped up by his enemies and the mainstream media, or to acknowledge that he was aware of the newsletters’ contents and defended them. It’s his rantings about the Trilateral Commission. It’s comparing Gaza to a concentration camp. You can make a case that President Obama is wrong on Israel, but you can’t in good faith argue that he is motivated by anti-Jewish animus. Ron Paul, by contrast, is not one of our friends.
Yet it is not unlikely that Paul will win the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses—he was the fairly clear frontrunner not two weeks ago, although he has since lost ground, so that overall frontrunner Mitt Romney is now considered the favorite. Which puts Jewish Republicans in a tricky position! To the long list of reasons why Jews typically don’t vote Republican could be added the fact that lots of Republicans do vote for this reactionary little man. In a year (happy new year, by the way!) when the Democratic standard-bearer may be especially vulnerable among Jews and the Republican standard-bearer, assuming it’s Romney, may be pretty appealing, the last thing the Republican establishment wants Jewish voters to do is associate the party with Paul. Enter the argument that Paul is actually a liberal, or at least draws much of his support and enthusiasm from liberals. It’s not as ludicrous as it seems on its face (on its face, it’s completely ludicrous: the man has run for the Republican nomination, twice). A recent poll argued that Paul does derive much of his support from non-Republicans; his positions on the war on drugs and gay marriage are much more compassionate and sensible than those of his competitors, although I would ask people suckered by this to read what Paul’s newsletters had to say about inner-city blacks and homosexuals.
However, it is undeniable that Paul’s ideology is classic, pre-William F. Buckley conservatism, and that the single largest and most coherent voting bloc that is likely to support him is not leftists or radical independents or progressives but Tea Partiers. Indeed, the ultimate Tea Party politician is generally thought to be Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky—Ron Paul’s son, and a key supporter. And the Tea Party is fundamentally a Republican bloc. Rand Paul advocated ending aid to Israel, and nobody seriously suggests he’s not a true Republican. So this argument that Paul is properly understood as somehow un-Republican is sophism, ranging somewhere on the spectrum between disingenuous and dishonest.
The most troubling aspect of the Paul phenomenon is, in fact, that he could win the nomination: the winners of four of the past five competitive Iowa caucuses have gone on to be their parties’ nominees; Paul has a national organization, a lot of money, and a sophisticated strategy to accumulate delegates. No, I don’t think he’s going to win—it’s going to be Romney—but it’s foolish to dismiss the prospect outright, as virtually every professional prognosticator does.
But the secondarily troubling aspect of the Paul phenomenon, and the one that has already come to pass, is the specter of the mainstream, legitimate candidates—including Romney—saying they would support him over Obama. Leaving aside the Israel stuff, on which Obama happens to be more “Republican” than Paul (President Paul would not fund Iron Dome, to choose one example), this is appalling given the newsletters and the other stuff. At Commentary, Jonathan Tobin argues that Romney’s approach to Paul is no different from John Kerry’s approach to Al Sharpton or 1980s Jewish Democrats’ approach to Jesse Jackson. But Sharpton was never anything other than completely marginal; and as for Jackson, I have no idea where Tobin gets the idea that Jewish Democrats coddled him. No: Romney’s promise to vote for Paul over Obama is shockingly craven, and one way you know it is that Newt Gingrich—whose actual politics are arguably closer to Paul’s—has said he wouldn’t vote for Paul over Obama. Gingrich, you see, has less of a chance of winning than Romney and tends to be more candid on the stump.
Ron Kampeas asked the $64,000 question: “Are they”—Romney and Rick Santorum, who has put up an impressive showing in the Iowa polls over the past week, also said he’d support Paul over Obama—“nodding to what they see as a genuine pro-Paul GOP constituency?” The $64,000 answer is yes—the alternative is to believe that Romney is also a dangerous extremist. I don’t think he is, and I’m certain the RJC doesn’t.
Most of all, it’s disturbing that Tobin’s first instinct, mirroring that of the GOP, is to regress into partisan talking points (he says Democrats lack standing to attack Romney, as though this were an appeals court rather than the democratic process) rather than to engage with this problem. The Republican establishment’s and Republican Jewish establishment’s decision to brush Paul and the very real movement he represents off rather than to acknowledge it, own it, and deal with it makes Paul’s isolationist, xenophobic, hateful ideology that much more dangerous; it makes it likely that, just as the 2012 Paul has gained more traction than the 2008 Paul, the 2016 or 2020 Paul equivalent will be even bigger than 2012 Paul—a candidate who, afer all, may win today’s caucuses.
But the secondarily troubling aspect of the Paul phenomenon, and the one that has already come to pass, is the specter of the mainstream, legitimate candidates—including Romney—saying they would support him over Obama. Leaving aside the Israel stuff, on which Obama happens to be more “Republican” than Paul (President Paul would not fund Iron Dome, to choose one example), this is appalling given the newsletters and the other stuff....snip...
The Republican establishment’s and Republican Jewish establishment’s decision to brush Paul and the very real movement he represents off rather than to acknowledge it, own it, and deal with it makes Paul’s isolationist, xenophobic, hateful ideology that much more dangerous; it makes it likely that, just as the 2012 Paul has gained more traction than the 2008 Paul, the 2016 or 2020 Paul equivalent will be even bigger than 2012 Paul—a candidate who, afer all, may win today’s caucuses.
I brought this problem up in 2008, and it wasn't an issue. I hope it's not this time around, but it's a potential issue for Obama. And this isn't the first (or 2nd or 3rd) article I've seen suggesting the issue, just the most coherent.
“There he goes. One of the GOP’s own prototypes. Some kind of political mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too racist and stupid to move on.”
Oh please, Ron Paul does suck but the Democrats kiss the butt of Al Sharpton and the Republican party is much more pro Israel on balance.
Ron Paul is not pro-Israel.
Heck, he isn’t pro-America.
Based on what he says, he would be happier in the green party.
That's true, the author skates around that issue. Don't you understand that in a political context when approaching independents and open minded liberals, if you're not willing to condemn tolerance of bigotry on your side, you've given away that issue. And imo the tolerance is much worse on the left. Kudus to Newt on this one.
No buts about it. Ron Paul sucks!
Have you seen this interview:
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/ron-paul-tells-haaretz-i-am-not-an-anti-semite-1.404208
You can make a case that President Obama is wrong on Israel, but you can’t in good faith argue that he is motivated by anti-Jewish animus.I'm sorry, but this sentence undermines the author's entire argument, IMO.
Brilliant! point
OUTSTANDING interview. Really great!!!
At this point the RINOS running the party look more like a foreign interventionist $15-17 trillion black hole bank bailout party than anything resembling conservatism, they have allowed themselves to become more liberal in fighting an international “war on poverty” for PR reasons referred to as the “War on Terror” which has the dubious distinction of having brought NO SECURITY FROM A MASSIVE SPENDING DEBT, which threatens to wreck any kind of economic security for anyone not already living through an Economic Collapse....thanks MF GLOBAL and Bain group and Corzine and Goldman and the rest of the golden parachute boys whom operate in the crony capitalism for me but not for thee world, what good maybe it to be pro America or whatever if America’s totally bankrupt and financially collapsed? Who cares about parties when people don’t have a job or can’t eat, it seems pretty obvious there are crooks to the left and the right and not much middle left to find, nobody wins when the rich and poor call themselves something other than neo-welfare queens, this seems like government extremism on steroids. What kind of security maybe living in close to $20 trillion in the hole, how exactly will that ever make us safe at all? It seems like these parties have forgot how to do simple arithmetic, how are they going to protect anyone from any terorist if they can’t add?
Okkkay,
Your response has nothing to do with the fact that Paul is an anti-Semite, racists, blame America first before anything, endorsed by Code Pink, David Duke and that Black guy.
Pauls’s foreign polices will destroy us if he is elected, the economic stuff wont mean dittely squat if we don’t exists any longer.
Maybe you can call him whatever you want, but it will not wash away the black hole of debt we face and it will not get rid of our problems, I can say all kinds of nasty things about anyone, but what does it matter? You accomplish nothing by insinuating and insulting his intelligence by associating him with those that choose to associate themselves with him, it really doesn’t matter and seems pretty irrelevant, when someone wins the lotto are there not a bunch of dirtbags that want to buddy up with them. He holds anti-big brother bug government views, some people that hold others views different from his also hold that principle in common, so ergo you imply guilt by association, as if the idea of liberty itself were a racist and militant socialist idea, can you see how much of a fallacy that portends for logical thinking?
How about reading the article at the link in post seven before continuing to spout the already-debunked lies you continue to spread... Kinda like the Plague.
Oh, please.
Ok, forget the issue of him him racists and anti-Semite, lets just look at his record.
He loads up bills with spending when he knows they are going to pass, then votes against them, just so he can claim “look at me I’m against spending”.
He has sat on committees where he could have actually done something about spending - zip nada.
He never introduced any bill to reduce spending.
Paul is a fraud.
He he is anti-big government except when he is not.
Ok, what lies?
Duke has endorsed Paul.
Paul endorsed McKinney.
That Black guy has endorsed Paul.
Code Pink endorsed Paul.
You say they are debunked - prove it.
You outline what’s wrong with the status quo, but don’t give any reason to think better of Paul.
Paul is still an isolationist who claims that he didn’t edit or produce racist, anti-Semitic, and loony newsletters that he published. He makes excuses for violence and anarchy in the ME and in the OccupyWhatevers.
Our choice is not RINO vs. Paul. We have other choices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.